Is Mandatory Contraception the Solution to Teen Pregnancy?

[flashprogram]

Bad idea. You force contraceptives on girls. Then what ? You force testosterone inhibitors on young man ? Or put retard release drugs which act on brain chemistry in all children to keep them obedient ?

It's a woman's right to do with her body as she see fit. Not her parents. Nor the society in general, or the state.

She might have fundamental rights in some sort of ideal moral system, but in the real world it is the LAW which determines who has rights and what rights they've.

If the law of a particular country says a husband has a right to sex, even if his wife doesn't want to, guess what!? it is legal for him to rape her, and under the eyes of the law he has a right to do that. If the law suddenly says women are no longer citizens and classifies them as property, well as abhorrent as that is, that would be what the law would say.

As for contraception, it is likely that some industrial chemicals widely used, that is products such as pesticides may have a similar effect, to what they do in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html" , in humans. If this does happen, we may get greatly reduced fertility or even sterilization of the masses.

 

[DanP]

She might have fundamental rights in some sort of ideal moral system, but in the real world it is the LAW which determines who has rights and what rights they've.

If the law of a particular country says a husband has a right to sex, even if his wife doesn't want to, guess what!? it is legal for him to rape her, and under the eyes of the law he has a right to do that. If the law suddenly says women are no longer citizens and classifies them as property, well as abhorrent as that is, that would be what the law would say.

As for contraception, it is likely that some industrial chemicals widely used, that is products such as pesticides may have a similar effect, to what they do in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html" , in humans. If this does happen, we may get greatly reduced fertility or even sterilization of the masses.

You confuse elementary concepts of law .

 

[Char. Limit]

She might have fundamental rights in some sort of ideal moral system, but in the real world it is the LAW which determines who has rights and what rights they've.

If the law of a particular country says a husband has a right to sex, even if his wife doesn't want to, guess what!? it is legal for him to rape her, and under the eyes of the law he has a right to do that. If the law suddenly says women are no longer citizens and classifies them as property, well as abhorrent as that is, that would be what the law would say.

As for contraception, it is likely that some industrial chemicals widely used, that is products such as pesticides may have a similar effect, to what they do in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html" , in humans. If this does happen, we may get greatly reduced fertility or even sterilization of the masses.

Unfortunately for your argument, the law in this country really does give a woman rights. And I thought that some of those rights did not extend to minors, but I may be wrong there... even so, the law dictates such that what DanP says is correct, at least for adults, and quite possibly for minors as well (I'm somewhat hazy on which rights minors do not have, but I know that they don't have every right that adults have).

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Pesticides, aka organophosphates and other nerve agents, will kill before they sterilize. I do not believe that casual pollution achieves this end.

As for rights, some of those countries, such as India, may experience high levels of spousal rape, but it is custom not law. In fact it is illegal, and many countries are signatories of universal human rights, which further binds them.

 

[flashprogram]

Unfortunately for your argument, the law in this country really does give a woman rights. And I thought that some of those rights did not extend to minors, but I may be wrong there... even so, the law dictates such that what DanP says is correct, at least for adults, and quite possibly for minors as well (I'm somewhat hazy on which rights minors do not have, but I know that they don't have every right that adults have).

My point is not that this is the law of the land, but that legally backed rights just happen to coincide for now with the common ideal rights. This has not always been the case in this and other nations, nor is it guaranteed for it to be the case in the future. My point is, that in the end, the presence or absence of rights in the real world is determined by the law of the land which may or may not coincide with the ideal.

Pesticides, aka organophosphates and other nerve agents, will kill before they sterilize. I do not believe that casual pollution achieves this end.

I've heard of cases were animals are feminized, and xy organisms that would have normally become male, turn out to have smaller testes, or actually develop into females. If some of these compounds have a similar effect on human males, especially the male mind and its gender, it should have an effect. Sperm count and Sperm quality have also been coming down for unknown reasons in various populations, which should reduce fertility and bring some men, in the lower ranges, into the infertile/virtually-sterile range.

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling evidence for effects in humans".-http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html"

 

[IcedEcliptic]

My point is not that this is the law of the land, but that legally backed rights just happen to coincide for now with the common ideal rights. This has not always been the case in this and other nations, nor is it guaranteed for it to be the case in the future. My point is, that in the end, the presence or absence of rights in the real world is determined by the law of the land.


I've heard of cases were animals are feminized, and xy organisms that would have normally become male, turn out to have smaller testes, or actually develop into females. If some of these compounds have a similar effect on human males, especially the male mind and its gender, it should have an effect. Sperm count and Sperm quality have also been coming down for unknown reasons in various populations, which should reduce fertility and bring some men, in the lower ranges, into the infertile/virtually-sterile range.

Generally the effected species are amphibian, and the effect on humans appears to be primarily neurotoxic through either the action of acetylcholine/acetylcholinesterase, muscarinic and nicotinic receptors.

Besides, fertility tech is ahead of the game, and in such a large human population there will be adaptation, and exposure to many varieties.

 

[flashprogram]

Besides, fertility tech is ahead of the game, and in such a large human population there will be adaptation, and exposure to many varieties.

Fertility tech may be ahead, but making it harder for a particular population to get unwanted pregnancies and costly for those that want them could stabilize or shrink a population.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Unfortunately for your argument, the law in this country really does give a woman rights. And I thought that some of those rights did not extend to minors, but I may be wrong there... even so, the law dictates such that what DanP says is correct, at least for adults, and quite possibly for minors as well (I'm somewhat hazy on which rights minors do not have, but I know that they don't have every right that adults have).

Minors have more or less all of the same rights as anyone else it is just that their parents or guardians are the ones looking out for those rights and making choices for them. You have the right to not be forced to take a drug but your parents are the ones that decide if you will do so "voluntarily".

 

[Moonbear]

So my question is: As a parent, why not have your child be given an implantable contraceptive such as Norplant? It's good for 5 years and it protects against one of the biggest life-ruining events that a parent otherwise has little control over preventing.

I would have two major issues with something like this. The most reliable methods of birth control (such as norplant or depo provera, which is a monthly injection...for a teen, even the pill is not as reliable since they can forget to take it) have serious health risks. Both of those longer acting forms of contraception contain artificial progestins (compounds that mimic progesterone). Possible side effects of progestins include blood clots, which can be life threatening, and long term use increases uterine cancer risks. In addition, norplant leaves behind scars, and when it is time to remove it, it will be encapsulated in connective tissue that grows around it and makes it difficult to remove.

Irregular bleeding is also a more common side effect of norplant, and very undesirable (perhaps even more so for a teen who is just trying to adjust to these body changes).

I'd also be concerned about starting hormonal contraceptives too early in teens if they do not actually need it because of less studied potential side effects on growth and bone maturation (these may not be an issue, but with the current state of knowledge, I wouldn't risk it).

In a teen, the progestin-only contraceptives would also have the undesirable side effect of potentially worsening acne (the estrogen containing contraceptives reduce this risk).

Further, there are some studies that suggest by the 5th year of usage, the efficacy is reduced, which, with normal progression of teen behavior, would be just about the time they are more likely to be becoming sexually active.

Beyond all the potential health risks, which may be worthwhile if a teen actually IS sexually active, but not if they are remaining abstinent, there is another serious issue that would make me think twice about compulsory contraceptives, and that is the trust that would be broken. I don't think a teen is going to go out and have sex just because birth control is made available to them, but I'd be more concerned about the psychological damage of demonstrating in a fairly invasive and obvious way that you don't trust your child to either not have intercourse, not use protection, or not seek your advice on using protection.

A few other issues I'd have are that putting a person on a hormonal contraceptive does not prevent transmission of STDs. If you think pregnancy is life changing, what about HIV, HPV, or herpes? While a teen may not be more likely to engage in intercourse with or without the availability of birth control, if they are already on a hormonal contraceptive, they are less likely to use a physical barrier method of protection that will also protect them against STDs.

Lastly, because a teenaged girl needs some time to learn how hormonal changes affect her body, putting her onto a birth control method that prevents menstrual bleeding or can result in very irregular bleeding would mean that if the contraceptive fails, she may take longer to recognize she is pregnant. A little weight gain in a teen on a contraceptive may not be recognized as pregnancy until she has much more limited options on how to handle that pregnancy, not to mention the risk to the fetus/baby without proper prenatal care if the pregnancy is recognized late.

So, I would much prefer to opt for educating teens on the risks of intercourse, the correct method of using contraceptives, make sure they know they can approach their parents with questions, concerns, or the need for contraceptives without getting lectured, and even go so far as to educate them on alternative methods to relieve that frustration of adolescent attraction. I think building trust rather than breaking trust is a better way of getting them to make good decisions and come to you for help if they make a bad decision.

 

[Char. Limit]

Unfortunately, such rationale as is in the above post goes completely ignored by the theocons... I can see what you mean, Moonbear, and you make sense. That's all I can think of to say here.

 

[magpies]

I don't agree with moonbear at all none of her points are valid or sound. So the only option left is to go with the man eating shark chastity belts.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't agree with moonbear at all none of her points are valid or sound. So the only option left is to go with the man eating shark chastity belts.

How do you disagree with the reality of the risks associated with hormonal therapies? In the water, in a pill, intrauterine, it all carries risks of stroke, and more. Cite your disagreement on the facts please.

 

[zomgwtf]

How do you disagree with the reality of the risks associated with hormonal therapies? In the water, in a pill, intrauterine, it all carries risks of stroke, and more. Cite your disagreement on the facts please.

Don't read too deeply into what magpies writes, I believe they are just a troll.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Don't read too deeply into what magpies writes, I believe they are just a troll.

That would explain a great deal I've seen here and in other threads. I try for the benefit of doubt, but you seem to have a good grasp of those here. Thanks for the warning, I will let him or her go on unremarked.